104 comments:

It all seems rather fishy, especially the expenditure and late accounts. Leaving privacy issues aside, I don't know why the Beeb saw fit to give what is obviously a two-bit call centre sales machine the credibility of a genuine national charity.

Lol - whatever happens National Bullying Helpline have nicely fucked themselves as a business - who would want to go to them in the future given that they've been so freely disclosing stuff in the press!

It seemed on that a "confidential" service would release details of a case. If they are geniune it wouldn't fill anyone who had called them with much confidenceand could make the bullying worse in some cases.Well done for looking into this in more depth than the BBC seem to have

I worked for a confidential helpline advising whistleblowers: no organisation or individual would have never been mentioned unless the case had gone through court, as it would undermine trust etc etc - bizarre that they have chosen to act in this way.

In fact what Pratt has done is to exploit any information she has (I am I am beginning to question whether she has it) for promotional purposes.

Re: BBC where can we complain to? Nick Robinson and new at 10 are at fault here should withdraw the allegation made until they check their sources properly.

somebody has a complaint against the NBH can't say what's true or not but here's blog about themhttp://thebullyinghelpline.blogspot.com/ obviously not proof of anything but I would have thought the bbc would have asked a few more questions before putting them on air to accuse the PM of serious matter.

A polybore post picked up on the same points you have outlined, Anther thing to consider is her husbands business interests. http://www.polybore.co.uk/2010/02/national-bullying-helpline-is-as-good.html

Really good spot Anonymous, and Adam, I think you're right. Aside from the absolute illegality of such a disclosure under the rules of the Charity Commission and the Charity Act 2006, it's clear that the issues of overdue returns and dodgy finances.

Also, the privacy issue is really important as it could cause the Beeb AND the Charity to incur a large fine. You'd think given that writers are being frozen to producing watered-down crap for the most part now that the Current Affairs team would have a slightly higher level of self-scrutiny.

Which is a scandal in itself (what other organisations seek and use government backing in this way and do the HSE/DfB have proper checks in place?), but doesn't take away from the obvious nature of what the NBH was, nor does it answer the question posed earlier as to why they would apparently commit commercial and charity suicide to benefit the political party to which they've been closely connected.

BBC Deputy political editor James Landale was the source on this story. It is down to poor judegement and rivalry between the BBC's deputy political editor and Nick Robinson, the BBC's political editor.

The Downing Street bullying story was on the front page of the Sunday newspapers. It's hardly a breach of confidentiality to say 'yes, we knew about that' under the circumstances. Nor can it have exposed workers in Number Ten to any more pressure than the Rawnsley allegations had put them under.

It's hard to disagree with Ms Pratt's point, which is that Lord Mandelson sounds like he is in denial and not taking the allegations seriously. You're all doing a brilliant job of making the the NBH look bad, but it still doesn't make the PM look good.

The BBC comes under fire all the time for its supposed "left wing bias". The idea that it could have fact checked the story and refused to run it on the grounds that the NBH are a bunch of Tories is absurd. They would never have been allowed to get away with that.

Gordon Rae - Channel Four News held back on the story yesterday for precisely those reasons.

The Rawnsley allegations were already widely reported and rightly so. My question is whether the BBC should have taken Pratt at face value and given such high profile to these separate claims, when there were so many clear warning signs attached to them. They should at the very least, have checked them out before going to air.

Lfat - Do you know what this commendation amounted to? Were they on a list of recommended charities or was it more than that. All I've seen on this is the brief mention in the Nick Robinson blog linked above.

And a complaint about the BBC to the Charity Commission too? I don't have a telly or a radio for that matter but being a target of bullying in the workplace that reaches out for help demands confidentiality.

"Ms Pratt added: "Over recent months we have had several inquiries from staff within Gordon Brown's office.

"Some have downloaded information; some have actually called our helpline directly and I have spoken to staff in his office.""

When you request information (a step-by-step guide to dispute resolution), you are asked to give your name, employer and email address. How many people would be willing to name their employer to an unknown organisation? In fact, your employer is a required field! I wonder if anyone put No. 10 down just to fill the space?

Or perhaps the NBH have the IP addresses of these people and have verified that these requests came from PCs in Downing Street? Then again, who would make such a request from work, knowing that your emails and Internet traffic was being monitored? You'd do it from home, wouldn't you?

The form says:

"We never share your details with anyone else. All correspondence is confidential."

Well...

Once you've submitted the form, you are told:

"Thank you for enquiry we will be in touch shortly."

You are not told that the guide will be emailed to you, but that they will be in touch.

Anyway, why do they not just put this guide on their website? It does seem like they want to gather names and email addresses. And employers names.

Not sure whether being on BIS's website makes it "recommended" as outside agencies are usually put up as a resource people can go to depending on their circumstances. These usually carry a disclaimer. Wonder if Nick Robinson checked this before his rather snotty response?

BTW Pratt has just been cited in the news as disclosing some more info: the PM was not the subject of the allegations reported. Wasn't that a basic question the bbc shouldve asked?

This all just smacks of the usual piss-poor reporting that masquerades as serious journalism these days and a willingness to believe and print any innuendo and slur, regardless to whether it has any basis in fact.

First time I've visited this site, excellent and impressive work. On checking the National Bullying Helpline website myself, I couldn't help but notice the tiny number of references to homophobic bullying therein. Really, it just feels like the bare, legal minimum requirement - a mention on the homepage and one in the 'legal' bit. Nothing I could find anywhere else. Couple that with the large number of religious sponsors, the right-wing endorsements, the prize won from the Mail on Sunday, and, well, for me the story of their affiliation is all told.

Amusingly, if you call "H & R Diversity Management" in Swindon on their published number of 01793 338888, the overflow goes straight through to - the National Bullying Helpline! These are supposedly separate organisations, the former a commercial company and the latter a registered charity!

Glad that Cary Cooper has resigned as he is a decent guy and probably just got caught up with these self-servers without realising their true bona fides. Always pays to check.

BBC journos are making a point of saying they have investigated and found no connection between Christine Platt and her outfit and the Tories - pretty bizarre given that the front page gives two well known Tory patrons - but it would be intriguing to know if there are links between Swindon Conservatives and either Christine or David Platt. The offices of NBH are next door to those of Swindon Conservative Association.

Iain Dale is letting the odd adverse comment through but is as usual cheerleading the smear over on his blog.

Hang on the link is to advice for organisations, not individuals (if you go back through the chain from useful references it's about advice for employers).

This is what it says:

"Here you will find a list of some of the organisations working in diversity who have specialist knowledge of the six diversity strands. They provide information, advice and examples of interesting practice for organisations looking to expand their understanding and improve their practice."

So all it is is BIS saying to employers, you can get training and advice in this field, which is consistent with some of the allegations made that the charity/trading company primarily has an employer focus (rather than an employee one): which again makes it all the more strange that individual employee concerns are being debated in public.

Despairing Liberal - there are links between Pratt and the Conservative council (see above). The fact that they're neighbours with the local Conservative association is another interesting snippet, although it may just be a coincidence. Certainly something a major news organisation should be investigating though.

Careful lads, is this really a professionally organised 'front' for the Tory party or a rather tatty attempt to cover a commercial operation with a charitiable front? Trying to grab some opportunistic publicity/more money?

One would have hoped the conservative party was more competent than this is smearland. The Tories are bad but can usually be relied on to be rather good at being bad.

It can be shades of both (not sure anyone's saying it's a Tory front. But we can see which way they are facing), and there's no legislating for being rubbish!

Lol - the BBC should make up for their errors by putting the NBH and HR Diversity up on Dragon's Den - get Peter, Theo etc or that hardcore American bloke to give them a good grilling about what they actually do./how much they value their comapny at...

I have never read this site before, but found it via a Twitter search on bullying....Obviously you had raised important points at the outset yesterday, and many intriguing and interesting posts follow. Quite independent of all this, and just stirred up by hearing items on the news this morning on the BBC, I wrote to Radio 5 Breakfast live as below. On one angle, how on earth can concerned and intelligent people like Prof Cary Cooper and Ann Widdicombe be so foolish as to endorse a charity like this, at any time: the most cursory look at material on their site and the charities register surely sets anyone's alarm bells ringing? (I note you criticise the BBC journalist for not even the most basic enquiry) And a point not previously mentioned: the helpline in question does not have the National Helplines Assoc kitemark. Why not?

QUOTEDear WhoeverI am a regular listener, and have been intrigued by all the material on the alleged bullying style of the PM and the curious interventionof a charity. Might I suggest you should be being more investigatoryabout the self-styled National Anti-bullying Charity. Who are they andwhat weight should be given to them? ........

Thus if, as I have just done, you look at their entry on the Charities Register you find that they are very small. I have no idea of their status but it seems small? And who exactly are the trustees?

As to the very important matter of confidentiality: if you announce that you have had callers from an identifiable workplace or location, you are indeed breaking confidentiality, not least because you areallowing the possibility of identification or pursuit. Good counselling and confidentiality practice ensures that NO identifying details are ever divulged.

My locus in this is once upon a time I was CEO of a (national) charity CEO which held confidential information on people; and that many manymoons ago I used to be a national adviser for the development of (youth) advice and counselling services. (I have never had anything todo with this particular charity nor did I know anything about it or indeed of it before this news item.)

My interest is not only as a listener with a general interest in thenews, including politics, it is also as someone who thinks Mrs Pratt'sactions ... risk people's confidence not onlyin her helpline, but in helplines in general; and also not just in her charity, but in charity in general.

Please to be looking at my early hours post HERE and also my first post HERE which went up at about the same time as your own Adam.

Breaking this morning has been them being neighbours to Swindon Conservatives, and Christine Pratt admitting no calls since 2007 and not all from Number 10. Vague but climbing down.

Most notable thing I found last night was mass resignation of Directors/Trustees January 2008 and current sole Director/Trustee appearing to be the husband.

Christine Pratt also works as a Committee Chair for Conservative Swindon Council - don't know whether that is remunerated. I posted a link to that in both the posts above.

Comment at my blog echoes stories that HR & Diversity Management Limited may have batted for both sides in disputes and actually even tried to make complaints go away or get timed out. Which if it were true would be damning. Perhaps HR&DM would like to comment?

Surely Tory politicians O'Connor and Widdecombe and the two showbiz Patrons MUST join Prof Cary Cooper and make a sharp exit?

Congrats to adam and others for working on this, shame the BBC doesn't do it. It is not even challenging Cameron over his demand for an inquiry while he employs and defends Coulson, who was involved in bullying a journo who won a £700,000 payout. what a joke.

A really quite brilliant PR fightback by Labour - switch and divert – supported by this and many other bloggers, tweets etc.

Sure, the helpline does look dodgy although the CEO, Christine Pratt, looks no more Tory linked than Labour linked.

She has endorsements from Tory MPs but also had same from a Labour MP, Anne Snelgrove although the latter did later resign because of her concerns.

But these links are nothing.

If you look at a website of many organisation - e.g. group of British X cultural society (where X is their homeland), Nat Assoc of Y (where Y is some charitable group). you will often find a beaming photo of Cameron and a minister and a local MP and maybe Brown or a royal.

It means nothing; it’s not a Tory or Labour ‘link’; MPs (etc) are just happy to write a standard letter of support to just about any registered charity.

So back to the main issue.

Is Brown a bully or not?

Don’t let Labour throw you off the trail and look askance at authors who facilitate this.

what does it possibly matter who or what the charity is? there has been no denial that they have had calls from staff in the Prime Minister's office. Is this not shameful? Are you really all so blindly partisan that you have lost sight of what is honest and decent in human behaviour? To abuse one's position of authority to make other people's lives a misery is unforgiveable. This is a standard we hold school children to - surely those in government should be held to at least the same standard? Bullying results in suicides, depression, mental breakdowns, ruined lives. Its defenders on here should be disgusted with themselves and look hard in the mirror.

Gkit. Do you not think you are a little blinkered? To speak of the importance of professional helpline practice re confidentiality, and of professional charity practice re accounting and regulation (as I did), is not to condone bullying. Had I and others been defending bullying, we would indeed need to be 'disgusted' with ourselves, but we haven't so I'm not! In fact the whole point of urging the importance of the confidentiality issue (which journalists would and should too) is to ensure that people who are bullied, suicidal etc feel trusting of sources of help

Soutpawpunch. What is a 'main issue' depends upon your perspective. Someone currently in touch with a service that has promised confidentiality may be much more concerned at the moment in the light of all this about whether or not that service will be as cavalier as NBH, than they are about Mr Brown's behaviour. Those whose world is politics, or journalism, should keep one eye on how that world induces a partial take on what is 'main'!

Paul - All the facts and links I have are above. The Charity Commission register shows that the accounts are overdue with them and the ones they do have registered are very small scale. I don't see any reason to change that analysis.

BTW I Just caught this very revealing Channel Four News interview with Pratt in which she repeatedly claims the organisation had "three or four" calls from the PM's office and the Deputy PM's office over the past 18 months. Gary Gibbon points out that there hasn't been a Deputy PM for the past 18 months. She replies that she will have to "check out the dates and the details"

(You are) correct to distinguish between accounts registered with Companies House, and those submitted to the Charity Commission, but Adam is not wrong to seek to draw some conclusions from what has and has not been reported to the Charity Commission. In my view (and that of many working in the charity world, and the world of donors large and small) the point is this: a reputable charity of any size takes seriously its responsibilities (formal and informal) to the community in general, and the community of charities, and does submit in a timely way financial accounts (and in some case something called a SIR which is a narrative report) to the Charity Commission. Timely here means as defined by the Charity Commission in respect of the reporting expectations to it as regulator of charities.

Being 208 days overdue with this expectation is an indicator which should make you sit up and wonder why and be cautious about the charity without of itself being a killer ‘fact’. Taken with the indications of the content and style of its website, and the behaviour of its CEO, it provides more than sufficient grounds for the hypothesis that this is a charity whose grandiose name overstates its importance, and whose practice displays scant regard for the professional standards one should require both of helplines and of charities. And journalists might usefully have been rather more questioning at an earlier stage about the credibility and significance of the source of some headline grabbing statements of hearsay.

Has anyone noticed that the charity's Data Protection Act registration has Purpose 5 as "The sale, hire or exchange of personal information." Seems a bit odd for a charity, but maybe there is a good reason other than providing info onto the associated company.

From "Still Going". My first post to your brilliant blog, although I did email you this morning Adam at 11:11 with a run down on how the Pratt modus operandi works. Can I make it clear that the Charity Commission have been warned repeatedly - but did not a lot. Also Cary Cooper was warned yonks ago, but he too did nothing. It took the airborne brown stuff to hit the fan before the resignations came just as thick and fast... and for the Charity Commission to finally get its act together.

The reason why Nick Robinson, the BBC's Political Editor may not have picked up on the scandal is because in the past he was to do with the Tory party in his youth. I already knew this, but a bio on http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Nick_Robinson confirms this. He was (according to the webpage) the President of the Oxford Universty Conservative Association and in 1986 spent a year as national chairman of the Young Conservatives.

It has been suggested to me by someone who has had dealings with NBH that the 2008 resignations by the charity's Trustees were because of concerns that Pratt wouldn't take guidance from the Trustees, and wasn't transparent about the links between the charity and her business. One Trustee reportedly wrote to the Charities Commission with his/her concerns. Has anyone else heard this? Is there any way of checking this with the Charities Commission?

No. I only use notebooks for gentle pursuits like sketching and poetry.

I live in Swindon and believe the local conservative leaders here to be, shall we say,'blind to the scrutiny of others'. Would be intrigued to know if the name Rod Bluh is connected to this in any way.

Well, Appealing of Ealing, seems like someone on here owes you £15,000. And I think it should come from a combination of all those who tried to smear her. I know Christine, and seeing all of you drag her name through the mud over this was heartbreaking. All she ever wanted to do was help, and people like all of you on here make that extremely difficult. Have you ever thought that by posting all of this on a website you are in fact cyber bulling her? Ironic isn't it.

She helped me at a time when I suffered greatly at the hands of my employers when I was just 16. She gave me the strength to fight, and to continue fighting injustices against others.

I was the youngest person at the launch of the charity at the House of Commons, one of just four special guests who had been helped by the actions of this woman and the organisation. I have always known her innocence of this PR scandal - which it is because there are a load of MPs under Gordon Brown who have since revealed the extent of bullying in Downing Street - and now there is proof. Shen has been officially exonerated of ALL allegations by the Charity Commission, and I should hope as someone who started all of this off YOU Adam set this right and issue an official apology.

The truth is out, and all of you should be ashamed for what you wrote about her.

Thanks for letting us know about the Charity Commission findings. They conclude that:

"a) the statements made by the Charity, as a result of the media story, had the clear potential to undermine trust and confidence in charity, the reputation and work of the Charity, and other helplines;b) by making the statements there was a risk that individuals may have been identified although this risk has not been realised (see paragraph 18);c) the statements were contrary to the Charity’s own Code of Conduct (see paragraph 21) and its published position on privacy (see paragraph 20);d) the trustees did not take sufficient steps to assert their authority to protect information provided to and held by the Charity as a result of the operation of the Helpline; ande) there is no evidence to suggest the statements were politically motivated"

and:

"a) the Charity was not operating in accordance with its governing document and the trustees didnot take steps to remedy this; andb) over a period of time the trustee body lacked cohesion and confidence and individual trustees did not act collectively and were unaware of their role and responsibilities."

Hardly an "exoneration" is it?

In fact given these findings, I think the questions I asked were more than justified.

About Adam Bienkov

Journalist at Politics.co.uk and contributor to MSN News, The Guardian and elsewhere. I also write a London politics blog for Snipe Magazine.
Do you know something that I don't? Feel free to email stories, tip-offs and leaks here and I will do the rest.